Skip to main content

About your Search

20120925
20121003
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
enforcement one of the reasons why the obama administration embraced it, but it's all about how these things are represented and what they're obligated to say when your pants down. do you believe in enforcing these laws been problematic are not? and when you say -- the whole idea of the. >> translator: is that these aren't the good kids. many -- i think they're right. it doesn't mean that they're a bad kid. community college or maybe you have got in trouble when you're a teenager. i think there is something very disingenuous about the debate we have around us, but of course that is because advocates of destruction debate in the certain white. this is rooted in any kind of believes that our prior to the way that we actually structure the conversation. i think that advocates have structured the conversation very advantageous sleep. >> a couple more questions in the month to cut off. i was wondering if you could and testimonials in terms of looking forward toward the democratic party strength. >> and also the gentleman over there. >> thank you. thanks to the forum today. the panelists. i can gi
of achievement on the obama administration and ends up accepting argument at time it was red called. the theory that the penalty people pay if they choose not to follow the mandate is a tax, and falls in the government's taxes power. this argument, of course, was in great -- with the fact that obama administration and congress had disclaimed there was anything about the law that was a tax. >> when you went in to the argument, and thought about the case, you mentioned you were conscious about where you thought your stronger and weaker points were. how vulnerability did you think you were on that. >> can imagine almost anything. but that was not something that was keeping me up at night. and you just, you know, as a lawyer you got to be practical about this. and, you know, you look at, by the way, by the time we got to the supreme court we had a lot of models for opinions that, you know, upheld the law and a lot of models for opinions that struck the law down. and the overwheeling them was, you know, even the judges that july held the law didn't think much of the taxes argument, anne, you know, h
and be safer. >> is this is broader issue with the obama administration's response to the arab spring? >> in some regards, yes. i want to take a moment to commend tim as i have before in his leadership on after the tragedy on april 16th at virginia tech. at the time tim and all virginians united, learned from what went wrong and improved the safety of our colleges, and so, tim, i commend you again for that. now, in so sofaras national sciewrs, there's a lot of challenges facing us. we had an uprising in iran years ago when people wanted a free and just society in iran, and i just wish the president said we're on the side of those who want to change that thee i don'- theocracy. when ronald reagan called the soviet union the evil empire, that gave heart to the prisoners. if iran gets nuclear weapons, that needs to be prevented. you have worries about particularly in syria, a chemical weapon stockpiles, you have the tax on embassies and consulates in libya and egypt and elsewhere around the world. it's why it's so dangerous and wrong to be playing these political games with our armed ser
obama recently declined to defend and the administration is enforcing it. the house has created the bipartisan legal advisory group. and the fans these laws since the administration abdicated its role in defending them and paul clement in that task. there are several cases all of which have petitions to decide. the first one and probably the front runner is a combination case, personnel management and the department of health and human services. it came out of massachusetts. two cases have been combined and they argue the equal protection clause violates section 3 of the defense of marriage act because the defense of marriage act violates the equal protection clause because there is no rational basis for this or it doesn't pass strict scrutiny. the idea of which level of scrutiny must pass has been questioned so we're happy to argue both. elena kagan was involved at the district court level during confirmation hearings that came out and questions her office had been involved in doing internal discussions of strategies in the case so she would be recused from that case and that p
brought more trade cases against china in one term than the previous administration did in two, and, by the way, we have been winning the cases. >> wednesday, president obama and mitt myth meet in the first presidential debate. the newshour jim leher moderates. live with our live preview at 7 p.m. eastern. on c-span, both candidates on screen, the entire debate. on c-span2, the multicamera version of the debate and dpolling, your reactions, calls, e-mailing and tweets. follow our coverage on c-span, c-span radio, and online at c-span doirgs. >> i have all the channels, house, senate, plus author, book review, speeches, those kinds of things. if i know a bill's coming up on the floor in the house, i watch, you know, which channel i want to see because i have them all. if there's either a speech i know that you've covered or a book review or so on, i'm going to watch that. when i want to find out something that has some value
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5